Rio Did Not Work - UNDP Head

By Marwaan Macan-Markar

During an interview with ‘Terraviva’ over the weekend, Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), said that the deal struck during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to achieve sustainable development was a failure. But he feels optimistic about the current summit in Johannesburg, given its push for a new model to finance projects to help the world’s millions living in extreme poverty.

What should this summit achieve to make it meaningful for the world’s poor?

- This is two summits rolled into one. There is one summit that is good for the world’s poor, which is the incredible energy being displayed, all of the civil society events, and perversely all of the private sector events. They highlight best practice and community level initiatives. It is a kind of global expo of sustainable development – not to be underestimated.
There is a second summit, which is the one that everybody hangs on and which drives the news headlines – the official document and after that, the political declaration. And there, while things are going better, there is no doubt that there is not going to be the breakthrough for the poor that was the aspiration of Rio.
But the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) offers us a framework. The trick is to expand and deepen that around issues that are underplayed in the MDGs, such as sanitation and other environmental issues.

What distinct message should the summit send the world, for there is no point in spending so much money (an estimated 850 million rands) just to reiterate the millennium development goals?

- During the lifetime of these summits, the whole focus on what’s new is a comma or the removal of a bracket in intergovernmental declarations. But what is new is taking something that has worked, from new energy devices in rural areas to new cultivation practices in agriculture to new water conservation programmes, and going global with them, as part of a structured solution to tackle the water problem, the agriculture problem or the energy problem. That is worth 850 million rands.
We need to look beyond the intergovernmental negotiations process to what we are creating behind it -- the partnerships and approaches and the leverage that will get us to the goals. That’s going to be the success of Johannesburg; it won’t be remembered for its grandiose commitments, but as the implementation summit.
But what this summit also clearly demonstrates is that the issue of sustainable development is both too big and too small for governments – because it needs a multi-stakeholder approach and you can’t get it done without the private sector and civil society and every citizen. Governments are indispensable, don’t get me wrong, and without an inter-governmental framework you don’t get beyond first base, but to knock the ball out of the court and achieve these goals you need those other partners as well. That is, in a way, the messy genius of Johannesburg.

One of the central debates has been over financing sustainable development. Civil society activists, for instance, are pushing for ‘Type 1’ outcomes in keeping with what was agreed at the Rio Earth Summit, while the U.N. is advancing the ‘Type 2’ partnerships. How relevant is this debate for the world’s poor?

- The fact is the Rio formula didn’t work, and that is why we are back where we are today. Things didn’t get funded with a few notable exceptions like GEF (Global Environment Facility), so the big ‘Type 1’ approach is problematic in terms of real deliverables. But equally, an entirely voluntary ‘Type 2’ approach, which depends on the goodwill of business and civil society and has no government framework or commitment or accountability, will not get you there either. That is why we are looking for as good a framework as we can get out at this point.
The big, ambitious ‘Type 1’ Rio outcomes …they died somewhere, several prepcoms ago. But there is a middle ground with commitment to the MDGs and additional targets. There is real emphasis that calls for developed countries to play there part in aid, trade – which is the removal of subsidies – encouragement of foreign investment and a whole host of other supportive issues.
There is a performance bargain that was agreed in Monterrey, where developing countries undertake the reforms and demonstrate commitments to the first seven MDGs (eradicate extreme poverty, achieve universal educations, empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and ensure environmental sustainability) and developed countries will be there to help them.
It is not as clear-cut as Rio, but it is a more pragmatic, realizable commitment. And again, the difference between Rio and now is as if we have got a middle ground that is doable in the MDG enhanced framework.

So you are convinced by the framework?

- There is a further assurance of it working because the MDGs are about year-by-year monitoring. And that monitoring being shared and becoming part of the political debate a la the debt campaign amongst civil society, parliamentarians and others. That is the real insurance policy of Johannesburg in terms of implementation.

So the way you look at the issues, it does not matter where and how the money comes to help uplift the world’s poor from poverty?

- What they need is the assurance that money is going to come, and that it is going to come in projects that work. For them, it is the results that matter.
They are not going to be interested or engaged in the somewhat arcane debates as it would appear to them. But it is not arcane to us, in that the pure Type 1 is theoretical and impractical and the pure Type 2 is an invitation to abuse. So this middle ground with a strong framework in which the Type 2s fit and that are monitored at a public, popular level through the MDGs is the best assurance for the poor that they are going to get results at this summit.